UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the(Rule 14a-101)

Securities Exchange Act of 1934INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT

(Amendment No.    )SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(a) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Filed by the Registrant  x                            Filed by a Partyparty other than the Registrant  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

PREFORMED LINE PRODUCTS COMPANY

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

To our shareholders:

The 20112013 annual meeting of shareholders of Preformed Line Products Company will be held at the offices of the Company, 660Hilton Garden Inn Banquet and Conference Center, 700 Beta Drive, Mayfield Village, Ohio, on Monday, April 30, 2012,Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 9:10:00 a.m., local time, for the following purposes:

Only shareholders of record at the close of business on March 7, 2012,8, 2013, are entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting or any adjournment thereof. Shareholders are urged to complete, date and sign the enclosed proxy and return it in the enclosed envelope. The principal address of Preformed Line Products Company is 660 Beta Drive, Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143.

By order of the Board of Directors,

Dated: March 23, 201225, 2013

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2012: TheTUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013:

This notice of annual meeting of shareholders, the accompanying proxy statement and the Company’s 20112012 Annual Report to Shareholders are also available at: http://materials.proxyvote.com/740444.

YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT

PLEASE COMPLETE, SIGN, DATE AND RETURN YOUR PROXY

PREFORMED LINE PRODUCTS COMPANY

PROXY STATEMENT

Our Board of Directors is sending you this proxy statement to ask for your vote as a Preformed Line Products Company shareholder on the matters to be voted on at the annual meeting of shareholders. The annual meeting of shareholders willto be held at 660700 Beta Drive, Mayfield Village, Ohio, 44143, on Monday, April 30, 2012,Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 9:10:00 a.m., local time.time and at any adjournment of the meeting. We are mailing this proxy statement and the accompanying notice and proxy to you on or about March 23, 2012.25, 2013.

Annual Report.A copy of our Annual Report to Shareholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011,2012, is enclosed with this proxy statement.

Solicitation of Proxies. Our Board of Directors is making this solicitation of proxies and we will pay the cost of the solicitation. In addition to solicitation of proxies by mail, our employees may solicit proxies by telephone, facsimile or electronic mail.

Proxies; Revocation of Proxies;Voting Instructions. If you are a shareholder of record, the shares represented by your signed and returned proxy will be voted in accordance with the instructions as indicated on your proxy. In the absence of any such instructions, they will be voted to (a) elect the director nominees set forth under “Election of Directors”, and (b) ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP. Your presence at the annual meeting of shareholders, without more, will not revoke your proxy. However, you may revoke your proxy at any time before it has been exercised by signing and delivering a later-dated proxy or by giving notice to us in writing at our address indicated on the attached Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders by April 30, 2012,May 7, 2013, or in the open meeting.

If you hold shares through an account with a bank or broker, banks and brokers have the authority to vote shares for which their customers do not provide voting instructions on certain routine matters. The ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm is considered a routine matter for which banks and brokers may vote without specific instructions from their customers, but banks and brokers do not have the authority to vote for the election of directors. IfAs such, if you own your shares through a bank or broker and do not provide specific voting instructions to the bank or broker or do not obtain a proxy to vote those shares, then your shares will not be voted in the election of directors.

Voting Eligibility.Only shareholders of record at the close of business on the record date, March 7, 2012,8, 2013, are entitled to receive notice of the annual meeting of shareholders and to vote the common shares that they held on the record date at the meeting. On the record date, our voting securities outstanding consisted of 5,521,3145,544,284 common shares, $2 par value, each of which is entitled to one vote at the meeting.

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS & MANAGEMENT

The following table shows the amount of the Company’s Common Shares beneficially owned as of March 7, 20128, 2013 by (a) the Company’s directors, (b) each other person known by the Company to own beneficially more than 5% of the outstanding Common Shares, (c) the Company’s named executive officers, and (d) the Company’s executive officers and directors as a group.

2

2

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Code of Conduct

The Company believes that high ethical standards are conducive to long-term performance, and as such, all Board members (as well as all employees) are subject to the Company’s Code of Conduct, which is available on the Company’s websitewww.preformed.com in itsthe “About Us” section.

3

Board Leadership

The Company’s leadership begins with the Board, where the Company has one individual, Robert G. Ruhlman, who serves as both Principal Executive Officer (President and Chief Executive Officer) and Chairman of the Board. Mr. Ruhlman’s dual responsibility is appropriate given the Company’s size and history. Since its beginning, PLP has had one person serve as both Principal Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. Mr. Ruhlman has led the Company for the past sixeight years as both CEO and Chairman. As such, he has thorough, specialized knowledge regarding the strategic challenges and opportunities facing the Company. Mr. Ruhlman is supported by independent directors who play pivotal roles. The Board has no policy that requires the separation or combination of the CEO and Chairman roles, and may reconsider the leadership structure from time to time. Additionally, the Board does not have a lead independent director. Finally, the Board believes that the Board’s role in risk oversight does not affect this leadership structure.

Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

The Company believes taking measured and informed risks is an important element of its strategy. The Board maintains an active role in the Company’s risk oversight. Given the current economic climate, the Board has become increasingly active in identifying and mitigating broader systematic risks. All material transactions and decisions are presented to the Board, and the Board engages in active discussions, challenging management while using their experiences to improve the Company. Additionally, theThe Board has a depth of risk management experience, including one Board member with over 30 years of experience as an insurance broker. The Board members frequently have discussions with members of management outside of the meetings, and have the authority to call on experts where appropriate. Additionally, in accordance with the Audit Committee Charter, the Audit Committee reviews and discusses with management and the Company’s independent auditor, the Company’s (i) significant exposures (whether financial, operating or otherwise), and (ii) the Company’s risk assessment and risk management policies. The Compensation Committee monitors the risks that may be created through the Company’s compensation programs.

Board Composition

In accordance with our Amended and Restated Code of Regulations, the number of directors has been fixed at eight, and there is currently one vacancy. The Board of Directors is classified into two classes composed of four members each, with both classes serving staggered two year terms. Below is an overview of each current Board member, of whom, Mr. Corlett, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. KestnerRichard Gascoigne, Mrs. Barbara Ruhlman, and Mr. RandallRobert Ruhlman are nominees for election as directors at the annual meeting of shareholders, along with a description of the particular experiences, qualifications, attributes and skills of the directors that led to the conclusion that each should serve as a director.

Glenn E. Corlett – Mr. Corlett’s business experience commenced over 40 years ago when he joined Price Waterhouse where he served as a partner until 1990. Since that time, Mr. Corlett has served as the Chief Financial Officer and later the Chief Operating Officer for N.W. Ayer, a major international advertising agency before he

3

became a Professor of Accounting at Ohio University, and the Dean and Philip J. Gardner Leadership Professor at the College of Business at Ohio University from July 1997 through June 2007. Mr. Corlett’s tenure at Ohio University’s Business School has given him the necessary credentials to be a viablecontributing member of the Board, not only from an accounting aspect, but also in general business management. Mr. Corlett has lectured and written on accounting, auditing and executive compensation. Mr. Corlett’s zest for understanding the Company’s financials; while providing sound business advice keeps him in a close working relationship with senior management, and makes him an appropriate Chairman of the Compensation Committee. In fact, his oversight experience is critical to his role in reviewing the Company’s compensation policy and ensuring that management is compensated in a manner consistent with the compensation policy and in accordance with the relevant laws. Finally, his inquisitive mind ensures that he is kept apprised of recent developments which may affect the Company.

Richard R. Gascoigne – Mr. Gascoigne brings more than 30 yearsyears’ experience in the insurance industry, and is well suited to be a board member, given this expertise in risk management and compliance. He was Managing Director at Marsh Inc., subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Co. from 1995 until his retirement in 2008. He had held numerous positions during his career at Marsh, including two years as regional compliance officer. He has extensive experience in commercial property and casualty underwriting, specifically focusing on middle market companies. In addition, he has provided risk management consulting to clients during product development, acquisitions, and market introductions. The Company values his strong risk management and compliance experience. He is skilled at monitoring the Company’s implementation of its policies while ensuring that the Company adheres to its own guidelines. His thoughtfulness in decision-making coupled with his willingness to thoroughly discuss issues make him a fitting member of the Board, as well as the Compensation and Audit Committees.

4

Michael E. Gibbons – Mr. Gibbons began his career with McDonald & Company, where he quickly rose to the level of general partner and then senior vice present.president. From there, he became president and CEO of a leading regional securities and investment banking firm in Houston, Texas. Soon after that, he founded Brown Gibbons Lang & Company, where he provides an active senior role to client engagements and business development opportunities. His financial literacy is admirable, particularly his experience with respect to trends in the debt and equity markets. He knows how to provide workable solutions to the Company. HeFrom his leadership of an investment bank, he is well suited to provide counsel on trends in the debt and equity markets, the integrity of the financial statements and the performance of our independent registered public accounting firm. This business acumen and experience ensures that he is well suited not only as a member of the board, but also as the Chairman of the Audit Committee and a member of the Compensation Committee.

R. Steven Kestner – Mr. Kestner has been practicing corporate law with the national law firm of Baker & Hostetler LLP since 1979. Mr. Kestner has served as the Executive Partner of Baker & Hostetler since 2004 and is a member ofchairs the firm’s Policy Committee, which functions as the board of directors for the law firm. As Executive Partner, Mr. Kestner is the chief executive officer of the firm and his responsibilities include managing the firm’s operations, finance and strategic growth. In addition, prior to becoming Executive Partner of the firm he served in several management positions, including Policy Committee member and Chair of the firm’s National Business Practice Group, while developing an active legal practice focusing primarily on transactions, financings and securities law matters. Mr. Kestner advises and represents clients in the areas of domestic and foreign mergers and acquisitions, and he regularly works with public and private companies. He works closely with NYSE and NASDAQ listed companies. Mr. Kestner’s securities law work has included registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to both debt and equity financings and annual and periodic reports and proxy statements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. He is valued for his thoughtful analysis and ability to provide the Board with various perspectives based on his depth of experience with similar companies.

Barbara R. Ruhlman – Mrs. Ruhlman is the current longest-serving board member, having become a member of the Board in 1988. As the daughter of the founder and the mother of Robert G. Ruhlman and Randall M. Ruhlman, she has seen the Company grow from its founding to a local manufacturing firm to the multi-national company it is today. She has served as President of the Thomas F. Peterson Foundation since 1988, and has been active in her philanthropy for over 50 years. She serves as a member of the Development Committee of the University Hospitals Board of Directors, and in addition, she serves as Chair of the MacDonald Women’s Health Leadership Council. She servedhas been on the Board of the Arthritis Foundation Northeastern Ohio Chapter for 20 years, and nowalso serves on the Hunger Network Board. Finally, she has beenwas a member of the Board at Laurel School for over 10 years. Mrs. Ruhlman brings her vast experience based not only on long-standing tenure with the Company, but also with her extensive exposure to other entities via her volunteer work. She has the skills and capacity to provide strategic insight and direction by encouraging innovations and evaluating strategic decisions.

4

Randall M. Ruhlman – Mr. Ruhlman has managed his own company for over twenty years. As such, he has experience in corporate management and an understanding of management trends in general. He presents a mature confidence, respect for others, and an openness to other opinions.

Robert G. Ruhlman – Mr. Ruhlman started with the Company over 35 years ago as an Associate Engineer. Over his years of service with the Company, he has held various positions including Manufacturing Administrator (1985), New Venture Coordinator (1987), Vice President of Corporate Planning (1988), President (1995), Chief Operating Officer (1995) and, most recently, Chief Executive Officer (2000). He was appointed as Chairman of the Board in 2004. These positions have given Mr. Ruhlman exposure to almost every aspect of the Company, from Manufacturing to Marketing. He has had ample experience and intimate knowledge of not only the Company itself, but also working with its customers. He has also been lauded for his clear thinking and ability to distill vast information into theits critical components. He has a record of making sound business decisions as well as evidence that the duties as a director will be discharged in good faith and in a manner that is in the best interests of the Company. Finally, his leadership fosters a Board culture of open discussion to support sound decision-making.

5

Election of Directors

FourThree of the Company’s directors, Glenn E. Corlett, Michael E. Gibbons, R. Steven KestnerMr. Richard Gascoigne, Mrs. Barbara Ruhlman, and Randall M.Mr. Robert Ruhlman, are serving a termterms that expiresexpire at this year’s annual meeting of shareholders and have been nominated for re-election at the meeting to a term which expires in 2014. Three2015. Four directors, Barbara P.Glenn E. Corlett, Michael E. Gibbons, R. Steven Kestner and Randall M. Ruhlman, Robert G. Ruhlman, and Richard R. Gascoigne, are currently serving terms that expire in 2013.2014. The Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of a majority of the Company’s independent directors, proposes that the nominees described below be elected to the Board of Directors. At the annual meeting of shareholders, the shares represented by proxies, unless otherwise specified, will be voted for the fourthree nominees hereinafter named.named

The director nominees are identified in the following table. If for any reason any of the nominees are not a candidate when the election occurs (which is not expected), the Board of Directors expects that proxies will be voted for the election of a substitute nominee designated by management.the Board. The following information is furnished with respect to each person nominated for election as a director.

The Board recommends that you vote “FOR” the following nominees.

Nominees for Election at the Annual Meeting

Current directors whose terms will not expire at the annual meeting of shareholders:

56

Current directors whose terms will not expire at the annual meeting of shareholders:

6

The Board has determined that Messrs. Corlett, Gibbons, Kestner and Gascoigne are independent under the NASDAQ’s corporate governance rules. In the opinion of the Board, Mr. Kestner’s affiliation with Baker & Hostetler LLP, a law firm that regularly provides legal services to the Company, does not interfere with Mr. Kestner’s exercise of independent judgment in carrying out his duties as a director of the Company.

Barbara P. Ruhlman is the mother of Randall M. Ruhlman and Robert G. Ruhlman.

Board Committees and Meetings

Nominating Committee

The Board does not have a Nominating Committee nor any charter with respect to nominations, however,nominations. However, pursuant to NASDAQ corporate governance rules, any Board nominees must be recommended for Board selection by a majority of the Company’s independent directors. The independent directors are responsible for ensuring that the members of the Board of Directors possess a variety of knowledge, experience and capabilities derived from substantial business and professional experience, based on an assessment of numerous factors such as age and understanding of and experience in manufacturing, technology, finance and marketing. The Board considers whether potential candidates will satisfy the independent standards for the Board, Audit Committee and Compensation Committee. Additionally, nominees for the Board of Directors should be committed to enhancing long-term shareholder value and must possess a high level of personal and professional ethics, sound business judgment and integrity. Finally, the Board welcomes nominees with diverse backgrounds, not only in gender and ethnicity, but also in particular experience such as banking, international business, government, and health care. To this end, the independent directors rely on their networks of contacts to compile a list of potential candidates, and may also consider qualified candidates suggested by officers, employees, shareholders and others, using the same criteria to evaluate all candidates. While the Board considers diversity in its evaluation of candidates, the Board does not have a policy specifically focused on the consideration of diversity.

7

Audit Committee

The Board of Directors has appointed an Audit Committee, and is comprised of Messrs. Gibbons (chairman), Corlett and Gascoigne, each of whom qualify as independent for audit committee purposes under the NASDAQ rules. The Board of Directors has determined that Michael E. Gibbons is an audit committee financial expert.expert and that each member meets the requirements under the NASDAQ rules regarding the ability to read and understand financial statements.

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors assists the Board of Directors in fulfilling its responsibility relating to corporate accounting, reporting practices of the Company, and the quality and integrity of the financial reports and other financial information provided by the Company to NASDAQ, the Securities and Exchange Commission or the public. The Audit Committee also engages the independent registered public accountants for the Company, reviews with the independent registered public accountants the plans and results of audit engagements, preapproves all professional services provided by the independent registered public accountants including audit and non-audit-related services, reviews the independence of the independent registered public accountants, approves the range of audit and non-audit fees, reviews the independent registered public accountants’ management letters and management’s responses, reviews with management their conclusions about the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures, and reviews significant accounting or reporting changes. Management does not approve professional services provided by the independent public accountants for audit and non-audit-related services. The Audit Committee is governed by a written charter, which is available on the Company’s websitewww.preformed.com.

Compensation Committee

The Board of Directors has appointed a Compensation Committee, comprised of Messrs. Corlett (chairman), Gibbons and Gascoigne, each of whom qualifyqualifies as independent under the NASDAQ rules. The Compensation Committee administers the Company’s executive compensation program and as such, is responsible for reviewing all aspects of the compensation program for the Company’s executive officers. The Compensation Committee meets at scheduled times during the year – no less than twice – and has the authority to consider and take action by written consent. The Compensation Committee Chairman reports on Compensation Committee actions and recommendations at the Company’s Board meetings. In order to meet its responsibilities, the Compensation Committee has the authority to delegate certain of its responsibilities to subcommittees and/or Officers where necessary and consistent with applicable law, and to retain consultants. The Compensation Committee is governed by a written charter, which is available on the Company’s websitewww.preformed.com. See “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” for the role of the President and Chief Executive Officer in compensation matters.

7

The Compensation Committee’s primary objective with respect to executive compensation is to establish programs that attract and retain key officers and managers, and align their compensation with the Company’s overall business strategies, values, and performance. To this end, the Compensation Committee has established, and the Board of Directors has endorsed, an executive compensation philosophy to compensate executive officers based on their responsibilities and the Company’s overall annual and longer-termlong-term performance, which is outlined under “Directors and Executive Officers Compensation.”

Meetings

In 2011,2012, the Board of Directors held four meetings. In 2011,2012, the Audit Committee held fivefour meetings and the Compensation Committee held twothree meetings. No director attended less than 75% of the total meetings of the Board of Directors and the total of meetings held by all committees on which the director served. Additionally, the Audit Committee Chairman and the Compensation Committee Chairman had numerous informal meetings with management and the independent public accountants. The directors are expected to attend the Company’s annual meeting of shareholders. All of the directors attended last year’s annual meeting of shareholders.

8

Audit Committee Report

In accordance with its charter, the Audit Committee assists the Board of Directors in fulfilling its responsibility relating to corporate accounting, reporting practices of the Company, and the quality and integrity of the financial reports and other financial information provided by the Company to NASDAQ, the Securities and Exchange Commission or the public. Management is responsible for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the system of internal controls. The independent registered public accountants are responsible for expressing an opinion on the conformity of the audited financial statements with generally accepted accounting principles. The Audit Committee is comprised of three directors who are not officers or employees of the Company and are “independent” under the current NASDAQ rules.

In discharging its oversight responsibility as to the audit process, the Audit Committee reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2011,2012, with the Company’s management. The Audit Committee discussed with the independent auditors the matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standard No. 61, as amended, (AICPA, Professional Standards, Vol. 1, AU section 380), as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in Rule 3200T. The Audit Committee has received the written disclosures and letter from the independent auditors required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent auditor’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and the Audit Committee has discussed with the independent auditor the independent auditor’s independence. The Audit Committee also considered whether the provision of non-audit services by the independent auditor is compatible with maintaining the independent auditor’s independence. Management has the responsibility for the preparation of the Company’s financial statements, and the independent auditors have the responsibility for the examination of those statements.

Based on the above-referenced review and discussions with management and the independent auditors, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Company’s audited financial statements be included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011,2012, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Michael E. Gibbons, Chairman

9

COMPENSATION POLCIES AND RISK

The Company’s policies and overall actual compensation practices for all employees do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. Generally speaking, the compensation policies are consistent for all business units of the Company. Additionally, incentives are not designed to, and do not, create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company as allthe incentives generally reward growth and profitability. The Company’s various bonus programs are based on consistent growth of the Company,

8

relying, for example, on the total return on investment, or including language that requires any increases in sales to be on appropriate and consistent margins. As such, they do not encourage employees to take risks in order to receive incentive compensation, nor are they reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Role of the Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) administers the Company’s executive compensation programs. The Committee’s primary role is to oversee the Company’s compensation and benefit plans and policies for its elected executive officers (“Officers”), including the Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”) who are the Company’s principal executive officer (Robert G. Ruhlman, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer), principal financial officer (Eric R. Graef, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President – Finance) and the three other most highly compensated executive officers. The Committee reviews and approves all executive compensation decisions relating to the Officers, including all NEOs.

In the performance of its duties, the Committee has the authority to allocate all or any portion of its responsibilities and powers to any one or more of its members, and may delegate all or any portion of its responsibilities and powers to a committee formed for that purpose, subject to approval from the entire Board. Additionally, the Committee may select and appoint outside consultants to assist it.

Philosophy of the Compensation Program

The philosophy of the Committee is to provide a compensation program that will attract, motivate and retain key leadership in order to give the Company a competitive advantage while ensuring the success and growth of the Company. The compensation program should ensure that a significant portion of compensation will be directly related to the Company’s performance by tying annual cash bonus and long-term incentive awards to Company performance. The compensation program is intended to motivate the Officers to enable the Company to achieve its short-term and long-term business goals. The Committee has three goals to guide it in this endeavor: (a) compensation paid to Officers should be aligned with the performance of the Company on both a long- and short-term basis; (b) compensation should be competitive within the employment environment; and (c) compensation should be designed to reward Officers for meeting performance targets.

Compensation Program

The Committee strives to craft a compensation program that pays the Officers at competitive levels reflective of their individual responsibilities while maintaining consistency and pay equity among the individual Officers. The Committee conducts an annual review of the compensation program, as well as changes in the overall composition of the management team and the responsibilities of the individual Officers, to ensure that the compensation is competitive within the market, supports retention objectives and is internally equitable. Reliance upon various tools, and the findings from such tools, assists the Committee in its analysis, and leads to decisions regarding the mix of the various compensation elements to be included. Additionally, the cost of the compensation program is considered, in recognition that the optimal compensation program motivates employees to improve the results on a cost-effective basis. Typically, the Committee finalizes compensation elements for a year in December of the prior year.

10

Tools and Findings from Analysis. The Committee relies upon tools to analyze the compensation program internally and within the competitive landscape. Historically, these tools have been outside data compiled by various consultants, tally sheets detailing overall compensation packages for each individual OfficersOfficer and discussions with the CEO regarding performance levels and goals. Beginning in 2011, theThe Committee will also considerconsiders the results of the most recent non-binding advisory “say on pay” vote of the Company’s shareholders on executive compensation.

9

Consultant. The Committee has the authority to retain its own advisor. SinceFrom 2007 through 2011, the Committee has engaged Pay Governance (“PG”) to assist with its evaluation of the compensation program, and to determine whether the compensation plan is adequately structured to meet the Committee’s goals.¹ PG provides no other services to the Company. The Company is not aware of any business or personal relationship that the key advisor of PG has with any member of the Committee, nor is the Company aware that the key advisor owns any PLP shares.

In 2010, PG provided the The Committee with an update on the executive compensation study completeddid not engage a consultant in 2007. To that end, PG: (a) confirmed the Peer Group used for analytical purposes², (b) evaluated the competitiveness of the Company’s executive compensation program, (c) assessed the pay and performance relationships of the Company’s compensation program, and (d) updated the Committee on developments in executive compensation, particularly in light of the increased scrutiny of executive compensation and the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill. PG noted that there is excellent continuity with the Peer Group overall, and that the Company has performed solidly in the 2^nd quartile of the Peer Group within the past five years, with key financial returns in the top decile. The Company’s target pay for its NEOs reflect market medians and it was PG’s recommendation that the program required few, if any, changes for 2011. PG explained that the relative ranking of the CEO’s realized/realizable pay is in line with PLP’s relative performance rankings versus its peers.2012.

External Data. The Committee generally relies upon various independent surveys, which are matched to specific positions with similar functional descriptions as those for the Officers. For 2011,2012, the Committee utilized the Towers Watson’sMercer’s annual compensation level survey. Using this independent survey, the Committee analyzed the compensation paid to Officers, including the CEO, to determine in which percentile ofcompared against the compensation paid to executives holding equivalent positions in the peer classification group, (i.e., durable goods manufacturingconsisting of surveyed companies with net revenue between $400 million and $1.2 billion and employment levels of between 1,000 and 5,000) the Officers fell.4,999 (the “Peer Group”). The Officers including the CEO were near the 50^th percentile, when reviewing base salary alone. The Committee also reviewed total cash compensation, which included salary and the maximum available bonus for the Officers, and compared that data with the peer groupPeer Group data. When comparing total cash compensation, all of the Officers were at or above the 60^th percentile. Additionally, the Committee reviewed the CEO’s salary as a percentage of the salary of each Officer, as compared with the Towers Watson data, and determined that the CEO’s salary was in line with the peer group results.

Discussions with the CEO. All of the non-CEO Officers report directly to the CEO, who performs a yearly evaluation of the performance of each Officer. The CEO’s assessment of the individual performance forms the basis for the proposed compensation levels of each Officer (other than the CEO), in light of the information derived from the aforementioned survey. The CEO provides a written evaluation for each Officer (other than the CEO) that includes his recommendations for salary adjustments for the subsequent year to the Committee, which weighs these recommendations in determining salary levels.

Results of 2011 Say On Pay Vote. The Proxy Statement filed by the Company in 2011 included a non-binding advisory “say-on-pay” vote on executive compensation. Although the vote was non-binding, the Board of Directors and the Committee value the opinions of the shareholders, and considered the outcome of the vote when making 2012 compensation decisions for the Company’s NEOs. The Company’s Compensation Programcompensation program received an affirmative vote from over 75% of the Company’s Common Shares entitled to vote and present or represented by proxy at the 2011 annual meeting. The Company views the shareholder approval as an endorsement of a sound compensation program, and has made nominal changes in 2012.

Compensation Elements. The Company recognizes that its success depends, in large part, on a leadership team with the skills and commitment necessary to successfully manage a global organization. The compensation program assists in achieving this objective by relying on the elements of compensation detailed below. Certain

10

elements are designed to enable the Company to attract and retain the Officers with the skills to anticipate and respond to the market, while other elements are intended to motivate the Officers to achieve financial results to enhance shareholder value. The Company’s 20112012 compensation program for Officers consisted of the following elements:

11

The Company structures the total compensation program so that its reliance on any particular element of compensation is flexible. Thus, the compensation program strives to meet the goals outlined above, by balancing short-term (i.e., base salaries, annual cash incentive awards), and long-term incentives (i.e., long-term equity grants), competitively in the market. There is no difference in the policies and their application for each of the Officers, except for the CEO.

Base Salaries. The Company’s goal is to establish salaries at a level sufficient to attract and retain talented executives. This goal is based on the Company’s belief that it is important to maintain salary levels near a midpoint of comparable peer groupcompany executives to be competitive within the general market and the peer group.Peer Group. The base salaries of the Officers are reviewed annually. In each case, factors considered in establishing an Officer’s salary level include a review of the individual’s performance initiated by the CEO, an accounting of the Company’s performance, the experience level for the position and the peer groupPeer Group executive compensation information using companies with similar revenue and employee levels, derived from independent compensation surveys and internal equity. For 2011,2012, the Committee ratified the CEO’s recommendations for Officer salaries.salaries (other than the CEO). For the CEO’s salary, the Committee considered the written recommendation on the competitive market prepared by the Vice President of Human Resources, as well as the CEO’s request for the secondthird consecutive year for no adjustment, particularly given the harsh economic conditions. The Committee believed that because the CEO led the management team to a successful year in the face of the trying economy, an adjustment was warranted. As such, the Committee approved an increase to the CEO compensation consistent with increases given to all Officers.

Annual Cash Incentive Awards. The annual cash incentive award is designed to motivate and reward the Officers for their contributions to the Company’s performance by making a significant portion of their total compensation variable and dependent upon the Company’s annual financial performance. It is tied directly to the financial performance of the Company on a sliding scale of return on shareholders’ equity. The Committee believes that compensating management by aligning compensation with shareholders’ return on their investment is an effective way to connect the achievement of performance goals and to encourage growth in the Company while rewarding Officers for their contributions. The calculation is based on the Company’s pretax return on equity and assessed over a range of 6%4% to 15%. The implied target is 10.4% which assumes a linear, symmetrical bonus curve with one-half of the maximum bonus earned at the midpoint of the performance range. From this calculation, the awards are determined based on a schedule that provides certain percentages to be applied to base salaries. The maximum bonuses are 100% of salary for the CEO and 85% of salary for the other Officers. The awards are discretionary, subject to the Committee’s approval. Upon approval, the cash incentive payments are granted at year end, and the cash incentive payment for each Officer except for the CEO utilizes the same percentage of each Officer’s salary. The Committee has the ability to exercise discretion and make adjustments, in the event of a transformational event where circumstances beyond the control of the Officers occur during the year.

Long-term Equity Grants. The Committee believes that the Company’s shareholders will be well served if a greater percentage of the long-term equity incentive program is related to achievement of the Company’s board-approved strategic objectives. To that end, the “balanced LTI program” consisting of service vested restricted shares and performance vested restricted shares, is a way to achieve its objectives. Generally, performance-vesting aligns executive long-term incentive rewards more directly with shareholder interests since achieving strategic objectives is a better measure of managements’ performance than the vagariesvolatility of the stock market. Furthermore, the Committee believes that the shareholders are served well by decisions that further the Company’s long-term strategic plan. The Committee also believes that the CEO’s long-term incentive should be 100% dependent on the

11

achievement of the Company’s strategic objectives. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that it is appropriate to include some service vested restricted shares in the long-term incentive program of the other Officers in order to encourage retention of key executives over the duration of a business cycle. Additionally, upon vesting, it is mandated that the Officers defer receipt of the shares until, at the earliest, their retirement/termination date.

12

Long-term equity incentive grants are made under the Preformed Line Products Company Long Term Incentive Plan of 2008 (“LTIP”), which was initially approved by the Board and by the shareholders in 2008 and amended and restated by the Board during February 2011 and subsequently approved by the shareholders at the April 2011 annual meeting. The CEO’s equity compensation awards are performance-based shares, vesting in three years based upon achieving performance standards approved at the time of the grant by the Company’s Board of Directors. The equity compensation awards to the other participants are as follows: two-thirds of the award is performance-based shares, vesting in three years based on achieving performance standards approved at the time of the grant by the Company’s Board of Directors, and one-third of the award is service-based shares, vesting three years after the date of the grant based solely on continued employment by the Company. The Committee chose to emphasize performance over three years (rather than weigh performance and service equally), because it believes this approach aligns the Company’s performance with shareholder interests, while acknowledging the benefit from long-term service. The CEO’s target award is equal to 100% of the CEO’s salary at the date of vesting, with a maximum award equal to two times the target award. The awards to the other Officers are as follows: the target award is equal to that percentage of participant’s salary at the date of vesting that is specified at the time of grant. The maximum amount of the performance portion of the award is equal to two times the target award. The maximum award for the service vested portion of the award is equal to the target award. Each Officer was granted the number of shares equal to the maximum level, under the performance criteria. For the performance-based shares, the number of restricted shares in which the participant becomes vested will depend upon the specific level of performance of growth in pretax income and sales growth over the three-year performance period, with thresholds of 5% and 3% respectively, and maximum of 10% of both. Cash dividends related to the 2008 grant were reinvested in additionalDividends declared on restricted shares and held subject to the same vesting requirementsare accrued as the underlying shares. Dividends declared in 2009 and thereafter will be accrued in cash dividends.

In consultation with PG, theThe Committee reviewed the 2010prior grants of restricted shares under the LTIP in considering whether to make any changes for the 20112012 grants of restricted shares . PG reported that the cliff-vesting for service-based awards under LTIP is more demanding than the Peer Group’s practices. However, the Company’s pre-tax income goals for its performance-based restricted share awards are assessed over a fairly narrow range and not as demanding as the Peer Group’s historical results.shares. The Committee considered this opinion, but believes thatgeneral executive compensation surveys and reports providing recommendations on corporate governance and competitive market practices for setting executive compensation. In addition, the market in which the Company sells is more sensitive to the decline in the overall economic conditionsCommittee considered various industry estimates of future growth of the world economy than the peersCompany’s industry, which reflected a consensus anticipating 3% growth in the durable goods manufacturers group. PG advised the Committee that the number of metrics (i.e., 2) is an appropriate number, the weighting towards profitability is an appropriate focus and that the targets for these metrics should be consistent with the Company’s strategic objectives. The Committee reviewed the economic projections for capital spending inexpenditures by the public utility marketindustry in 2013 and confirmed4% in 2014. As such, the Committee decided that the 2010 grant structure and performance metrics undershould remain at a 3% sales growth and a 5% increase in pre-tax income over the LTIP were appropriatenext three years. The Committee believed that these metrics would be challenging to achieve, as they would need to be sustained over a three-year period and would require growth relative to the Company’s results for the 2011, and that achievingwhich was a record year in terms of sales over prior periods. Achieving the performance targets would be a strong result inand further the best long-term interest of the shareholders. As such, the Committee confirmed approved such grants in February 20112012 to each of the Officers, including the CEOCEO.

Retirement Benefits. The Company believes that retirement benefits are an important component of total compensation. The Company’s primary retirement benefit consists of the Company’s 401(k) and profit sharing plan under which all salaried employees of the Company, including Officers, participate starting in their third year of employment. The amount the Company provides to the profit sharing plan is based on the recommendation of management, with the Board’s approval. Typically, the Company’s contribution under this plan is approximately 15% of the then-current year’s cash compensation which is consistent with the amount contributed for all full-time salaried employees of the Company, including the cash incentive award. When calculating the Company’s contributions under the profit sharing plan, the Company does not consider gains from prior awards. Every aspect of this plan is the same for all salaried employees, including Officers. Thus, each salaried participant elects the investment options with the same options offered to all salaried employees and Officers. The plan does not involve any guaranteed minimum return or above-market returns; rather, the investment returns are dependent upon actual investment results. To the extent an employee’s award exceeds the maximum allowable contribution permitted under existing tax laws, the excess is accrued for (but not funded) under a non-qualified Supplemental Profit Sharing Plan. The return under this Supplemental Profit Sharing Plan is calculated at a weighted average of the Treasury constant maturity one-year rate plus 1%.

12

Executive Perquisites. Perquisites and other personal benefits do not comprise a significant aspect of the Company’s compensation program. Although Officers participate in the same benefit programs as the Company’s other employees, the Company provides a few additional benefits to its Officers. These benefits are designed to enable the Officers to balance their personal, business and travel schedules. In 2011,2012, benefits include the Company’s payment of club dues, which was less than $4,000 annually per membership, for four of the NEOs as indicated in the accompanying Summary Compensation Table. The Company also pays annual dues for Robert G. Ruhlman at a club located near the Company’s Rogers, Arkansas facility, which totaled approximately $3,000 in 2011.2012. This benefit is also provided to four other non-officer employees, primarily for business entertainment purposes. Except as described here, the Company aircraft is available to all of the employees, including the Officers, for business-related travel only. The CEO is permitted to use the Company’s aircraft for personal purposes, as shown on the Summary Compensation Table. The Company also makes personal financial advice available to the CEO and tax advice available to all its Officers.

13

Directors’ Compensation. The Company pays each Board member an annual retainer rather than fees for meeting attendance, because the Committee recognized the active role in corporate governance required from the Board members on an on-going basis. As such, the Directors are able to focus on their role as an overseer of corporate governance on a day-to-day basis. A crucial driver for the annual retainer is the need to ensure that the Company can retain and recruit Directors who are chosen for their financial and business acumen rather than prestige.

Additionally, the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, which allows Directors to make elective deferrals of Director Fees payable by the Company in the form of Common Stock, is available to all Board members. The Plan is intended to work in concert with the Preformed Line Products Company Deferred Shares Plan, so that Directors will have the ability to elect to receive Director Fees either in cash currently or in common shares of the Company at a later date, thereby deferring taxation to the extent permitted by law. In 2010, the Board approved a change to the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, whereby the dividends from the deferred shares will be paid in cash, rather than additional shares.

Tax Deductibility of Pay. Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 places a limit of $1 million on the amount of compensation that a company may deduct in any one year with respect to each of its NEOs. All Officers were below this threshold in 2011,2012, except the CEO.

Compensation Committee Report

The Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the foregoing Compensation Discussion and Analysis, required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K, and based on the review and discussion, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement.

Glenn E. Corlett, Chairman

1314

Summary Compensation Table

The table below describes the compensation earned in the last three fiscal years for our NEOs.

14

15

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

1516

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

Option Exercises and Stock Vested

1617

Non-qualified Deferred Compensation

Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control

All of our employees, including NEO’s,NEOs, are employed at will and do not have employment, severance or change-in-control agreements. However, the LTIP includes a change in control provision which provides that in the event of a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan) (a) any Optionsoptions outstanding which are not then exercisable and vested shall become fully exercisable and vested; and (b) the restrictions applicable to any restricted shares shall lapse and such restricted shares shall become fully vested and transferable. The following table shows the amount the Company’s NEOs would have received under the LTIP if a change in control had occurred on December 31, 2012. The amounts are equal to the value of the shares that would have vested as of December 31, 2012 and, in the case of options, less the aggregate exercise price.

The following details typical compensation arrangements upon retirement, resignation, death, disability or other termination for other plans.

Profit-Sharing Plan

Upon termination of employment, the employee may receive vested contributions plus income earned on those contributions under the Company’s Profit Sharing Plan. Upon disability, the IRS allows withdrawals to be made if the employee became permanently disabled. Upon death, the vested account balance of the employee will be paid to the designated beneficiaries.

18

Supplemental Profit-Sharing Plan

Our Supplemental Profit-Sharing Plan was established to compensate employees whose benefits in the Profit-Sharing Plan were reduced due to IRS limitations on compensation. Upon termination of employment, the employee may receive vested contributions plus income earned on those contributions. Upon disability, the IRS allows withdrawals to be made if the employee became permanently disabled. Upon death, the vested account balance of the employee will be paid to the designated beneficiaries.

17

Director Compensation

Each director who is not an employee of the Company received an annual retainer fee of $25,000. Directors who are also employees are not paid a director’s fee. Additionally, board members who serve on committees are also paid an annual retainer of $10,000 and chairperson’schairpersons of each committee are paid an additional annual retainer of $10,000.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

There are noNo director serving on the Compensation Committee interlocksduring any part of 2012 was at any time either during or insider participation.before 2012, an officer or employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries. No interlocking relationship exists between the Board or Compensation Committee and the board of directors or compensation committee of any other company, nor has any interlocking relationship existed during 2012.

19

Transactions with Related PersonsPerson

It is the policy of the Company that the Audit Committee approves all related party transactions. Additionally, the Company has a Code of Conduct that addresses the Company’s commitment to the honesty, integrity and ethical behavior of the Company’s directors, Officers and employees. The Code governs the actions and working relationships of the Company’s directors, Officers and employees with current and potential customers, consumers, fellow employees, competitors, government and self-regulatory agencies, investors, the public, the media and anyone else with whom the Company has or may have contact. Each director, Officer and employee is instructed to inform the Board when confronted with a situation that may be perceived as a conflict of interest. All related party transactions must be approved by the Audit Committee in advance. The Audit Committee may engage outside parties to assist it in assessing the fairness and reasonableness of related party transactions. Although the policies and procedures for related parties are not in writing, the results of actions taken by the Audit Committee are documented in formal minutes and are reported to the Board. The following are the Transactions with Related PersonsParties which have been approved by the Board in 2011.2012.

18

19

PROPOSAL: Ratification of the Appointment of Ernst &Young LLP

The Board recommends that you vote “FOR” on this proposal.

The Audit Committee has appointed Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”) as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2012.2013. For 2011,2012, the Company engaged E&Y to serve as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ended December 31, 2011,2012, to audit the annual financial statements and to perform audit-related and tax services. Representatives of E&Y are expected to be present at the annual meeting of shareholders, will have an opportunity to make a statement if they so desire, and will be available to respond to appropriate questions.

The Board of Directors seeks an indication from shareholders of their approval or disapproval of the Audit Committee’s appointment of E&Y as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2012.2013. The submission of this matter for approval by the shareholders is not legally required. The Board believes that submission of this matter presents an opportunity for the shareholders to provide feedback to the Board on an important issue of corporate governance. If the shareholders do not approve the appointment of E&Y, the appointment will be re-evaluated by the Audit Committee but will not require the Audit Committee to appoint a different accounting firm. The Audit Committee in its discretion may select a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders. Approval of the proposal to ratify the selection of E&Y as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the common shares present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions will have the same effect as votes against the proposal. Broker non-votes will not be considered common shares present and entitled to vote on the proposal and will not have a positive or negative effect on the outcome of this proposal.

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS FOR 2013 ANNUAL MEETING

Proposals of shareholders intended to be presented, pursuant to Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), at the 2013 annual meeting of shareholders must be received by the Company at 660 Beta Drive, Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143, on or before November 16, 2012, for inclusion in the proxy statement and form of proxy relating to the 2012 annual meeting of shareholders. In order for a shareholder’s proposal outside of Rule 14a-8 under the Exchange Act to be considered timely within the meaning of Rule 14a-4(c) of the Exchange Act, such proposal must have been received by the Company at the address listed in the immediately preceding sentence not later than February 2, 2013.20

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s directors and executive officers, and owners of more than 10% of our Common Shares, to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our Common Shares and other equity securities. Executive officers, directors and owners of more than 10% of the Common Shares are required by SEC regulations to furnish the Company with copies of all forms they file pursuant to Section 16(a).

Based solely on a review of these reports and written representations from the executive officers and directors, the Company believes that there was compliance with all such filing requirements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, except a Form 4 for Eric R. Graef relating to three transactions that were not timely filed due to an administrative error.

OTHER MATTERS

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has appointed Ernst & Young LLP (E&Y) as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2012.

20

Fees

Audit Fees

The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by E&Y were $1,592,000$1,623,000 for the audit of the Company’s annual financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012, the audit of internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, E&Y’s review of the financial statements included in the Company’s Form 10-Q’s filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the first, second and third quarters of 2012 and statutory audits of various international subsidiaries. The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by E&Y were $1,630,000 for the audit of the Company’s annual financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011, the audit of internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, E&Y’s review of the financial statements included in the Company’s Form 10-Q’s filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the first, second and third quarters of 2011 and statutory audits of various international subsidiaries. The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by E&Y were $1,556,000 for the audit of the Company’s annual financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010, the audit of internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, E&Y’s review of the financial statements included in the Company’s Form 10-Q’s filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the first, second and third quarters of 2010 and statutory audits of various international subsidiaries.

Audit Related Fees

The incremental fees billed for professional services rendered by E&Y for audit-related services for the year ended December 31, 20112012 were $0.$39,000. Fees included in 2012 were for services related to issuing a letter of opinion pertaining to our acquisition of Australian Electricity Systems PTY Ltd. on January 31, 2012 and the completion of a dividend certificate for our South African location. The incremental fees billed for professional services rendered by E&Y for audit-related services for the year ended December 31, 20102011 were $68,700. Fees included in 2010 were for services related to financial due diligence related to the acquisition of Electropar Limited.$0.

Tax Fees

The incremental fees billed for professional services rendered by E&Y for tax-related services for the year ended December 31, 2012 were $12,900. Fees included in 2012 were for tax consulting and a transfer pricing analysis at the Company’s Mexican subsidiary. The incremental fees billed for professional services rendered by E&Y for tax-related services for the year ended December 31, 2011 were $33,300. Fees included in 2011 were for tax consulting and a VAT reimbursement audit at the Company’s Mexican subsidiary. The incremental fees billed for professional services rendered by E&Y for tax-related services for the year ended December 31, 2010 were $93,000. Fees included in 2010 were for tax compliance, tax consulting, tax restructuring and a transfer pricing analysis at the Company’s Spain subsidiary.

All Other Fees

There were no incremental fees billed for professional services rendered by E&Y for all other services for the years ended December 31, 20112012 and 2010.2011.

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s directors and executive officers, and owners of more than 10% of our Common Shares, to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our Common Shares and other equity securities. Executive officers, directors and owners of more than 10% of the Common Shares are required by SEC regulations to furnish the Company with copies of all forms they file pursuant to Section 16(a).

Based solely on a review of these reports and written representations from the executive officers and directors, the Company believes that there was compliance with all such filing requirements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

21

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS FOR 2014 ANNUAL MEETING

Proposals of shareholders intended to be presented, pursuant to Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), at the 2014 annual meeting of shareholders must be received by the Company at 660 Beta Drive, Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143, on or before November 15, 2013, for inclusion in the proxy statement and form of proxy relating to the 2014 annual meeting of shareholders. In order for a shareholder’s proposal outside of Rule 14a-8 under the Exchange Act including submissions for director nominees to be considered timely within the meaning of Rule 14a-4(c) of the Exchange Act, such proposal must have been received by the Company at the address listed in the immediately preceding sentence no earlier than January 3, 2014, and not later than February 2, 2014 and must comply with all provisions of our Amended and Restated Code of Regulations.

Communication with the Board of Directors

The Board of Directors of the Company believes that it is important for shareholders to have a process to send communications to the Board of Directors. Accordingly, shareholders who wish to communicate with the Board of Directors or a particular director may do so by sending a letter to:

The mailing envelope must contain a clear notation indicating that the enclosed letter is a “Shareholder-Board Communication” or “Shareholder-Director Communication.” All such letters must identify the author as a shareholder and clearly state whether the intended recipients are all members of the Board of Directors or certain specified individual directors. The Secretary and Mr. Gibbons, as applicable, will make copies of all such letters and circulate them to the appropriate director or directors. The directors are not spokespeople for the Company and shareholders should not expect a response or reply to any communication.

Shareholders Sharing the Same Address

If you and other residents at your mailing address own common shares in street name, your broker or bank may have sent you a notice that your household will receive only one annual report and proxy statement unless contrary to your instructions. This practice is known as “householding,” and is designed to reduce our printing and postage costs. Upon written or oral request, we will promptly deliver a separate set of proxy materials to any beneficial owner at a shared address to which a single copy of any of those documents was delivered. To receive a separate set of proxy materials, you may write or call our Investor Relations Contact at PLP Investor Contacts, 660 Beta Drive, Cleveland, Ohio 44143, telephone (440) 461-5200.

Form 10-K

We will mail without charge, upon written request, a copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, including the consolidated financial statements, schedules and list of exhibits, and any particular exhibit specifically requested. Requests should be sent to our Investor Relations Contact at PLP Investor Contacts, 660 Beta Drive, Cleveland, Ohio 44143, telephone (440) 461-5200. The Annual Report on Form 10-K is also available atwww.preformed.com

2122

Miscellaneous

If the enclosed proxy card is executed and returned to the Company, the persons named in it will vote the shares represented by that proxy at the meeting. The form of proxy permits specification of (a) a vote for the election of directors as set forth under “Election of Directors” above, the withholding of authority to vote in the election of directors, or the withholding of authority to vote for one or more specified nominees; and (b) a “for,” “against” or “abstain” vote to ratify the appointment of E&Y. When a choice has been specified in the proxy, the shares represented will be voted in accordance with that specification. If no specification is made, those shares will be voted at the meeting to elect directors as set forth under “Election of Directors” above, and for the ratification of the appointment of E&Y.

Director nominees who receive the greatest number of affirmative votes will be elected directors and the choice selected by the most shareholders will be deemed the shareholders’ choice on the frequency of the Company’s executive compensation advisory vote.directors. Broker non-votes and abstaining votes will be counted as “present” for purposes of determining whether a quorum has been achieved at the meeting, but will not be counted in favor of or against any nominee. The voting standards for eachApproval of the other known mattersproposal to be considered atratify the meeting are set forth withinselection of E&Y as the above proposals. All other matters to be considered atCompany’s independent registered public accounting firm requires the meeting require for approval the favorableaffirmative vote of a majority of the common shares entitled to vote and represented at the meetingpresent in person or by proxy.proxy and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions will have the same effect as votes against the proposal. Banks or brokers holding shares for which no voting instructions were received may exercise their discretionary voting authority for this proposal.

If any other matter properly comes before the meeting, the persons named in the proxy will vote thereon in accordance with their judgment. We do not know of any other matter that will be presented for action at the meeting and we have not received any timely notice that any of our shareholders intend to present a proposal at the meeting.

By order If any other matters are considered at the meeting, they would require for approval the affirmative vote of a majority of the Board of Directors,shares entitled to vote and represented at the meeting in person or by proxy.

CAROLINE

By order of the Board of Directors,

CAROLINE S. VACCARIELLO, Secretary

Dated: March 23, 201225, 2013

2223

PREFORMED LINE PRODUCTS COMPANY

THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY

The undersigned hereby appoints Robert G. Ruhlman, Eric R. Graef and Caroline S. Vaccariello, and each of them, attorneys and proxies of the undersigned, with full power of substitution, to attend the annual meeting of shareholders of Preformed Line Products Company to be held at 660the Hilton Garden Inn Banquet and Conference Center, 700 Beta Drive, Mayfield Village, Ohio, on Monday, April 30, 2012,Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 9:10:00 a.m., local time, or any adjournment thereof, and to vote the number of common shares of Preformed Line Products Company which the undersigned would be entitled to vote, and with all the power the undersigned would possess if personally present as directed on the reverse.

2324

PREFORMED LINE PRODUCTS COMPANY

PROXY

The Proxies will vote as specified below, or if a choice is not specified, they will vote FOR the nominees listed in Item 1 and FOR the proposal in Item 2.

(INSTRUCTION: To withhold authority to vote for any particular nominee, write that nominee’s name on the line provided below.)

2425